Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Proposed 1.1.0-b2 #2566

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Jun 1, 2018
Merged

Proposed 1.1.0-b2 #2566

merged 14 commits into from
Jun 1, 2018

Conversation

seelabs
Copy link
Collaborator

@seelabs seelabs commented Jun 1, 2018

No description provided.

JoeLoser and others added 14 commits June 1, 2018 12:56
Fixes: RIPD-1575. Fix argument passing to runner. Allow multiple unit
test selectors to be passed via --unittest argument. Add optional
integer priority value to test suite list. Fix several failing manual
tests. Update CLI usage message to make it clearer.
* Enable the `suggest-override` warning for gcc
* Fix all functions that were flagged by that warning
Fixes: XRPLF#2521

Copy ctor missed one member. Also added move since we have some rvalues
passed around here.
@ripplelabs-jenkins
Copy link
Collaborator

ripplelabs-jenkins commented Jun 1, 2018

Jenkins Build Summary

Built from this commit

Built at 20180601 - 20:47:36

Test Results

Build Type Log Result Status
msvc.debug logfile 1029 cases, 0 failed, t: 566s PASS ✅
coverage logfile 1032 cases, 0 failed, t: 685s PASS ✅
docs logfile 1 cases, 0 failed, t: 2s PASS ✅
gcc.release.unity
-Dassert=true,
MANUAL_TESTS=true
logfile 1093 cases, 0 failed, t: 781s PASS ✅
clang.debug.unity logfile 1032 cases, 0 failed, t: 249s PASS ✅
clang.debug.unity,
PARALLEL_TESTS=false
logfile 1032 cases, 0 failed, t: 490s PASS ✅
rpm logfile 1031 cases, 0 failed, t: n/a PASS ✅
gcc.debug.unity logfile 1032 cases, 0 failed, t: 246s PASS ✅
clang.debug.nounity logfile 1030 cases, 0 failed, t: 703s PASS ✅
msvc.debug,
PROJECT_NAME=rippled_classic
logfile 1029 cases, 0 failed, t: 1246s PASS ✅
clang.release.unity
-Dassert=true
logfile 1031 cases, 0 failed, t: 336s PASS ✅
gcc.debug.nounity logfile 1030 cases, 0 failed, t: 718s PASS ✅
msvc.release logfile 1028 cases, 0 failed, t: 513s PASS ✅
gcc.release.unity
-Dassert=true
logfile 1031 cases, 0 failed, t: 354s PASS ✅
gcc.debug.unity
-Dstatic=true
logfile 1032 cases, 0 failed, t: 247s PASS ✅

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jun 1, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #2566 into develop will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 74.21%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #2566      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    70.78%   70.84%   +0.05%     
===========================================
  Files          703      703              
  Lines        54626    54685      +59     
===========================================
+ Hits         38666    38739      +73     
+ Misses       15960    15946      -14
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/ripple/nodestore/Database.h 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/nodestore/impl/BatchWriter.h 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/net/impl/RPCCall.cpp 61.65% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/json/JsonPropertyStream.h 0% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/rpc/impl/ServerHandlerImp.h 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/protocol/LedgerFormats.h 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/app/tx/impl/Taker.h 96.55% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/app/ledger/AcceptedLedgerTx.cpp 100% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/app/tx/impl/SetRegularKey.cpp 96.87% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
src/ripple/app/misc/impl/AccountTxPaging.cpp 89.42% <ø> (ø) ⬆️
... and 49 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 817d233...fd4636b. Read the comment docs.

@seelabs seelabs merged commit fd4636b into XRPLF:develop Jun 1, 2018
@seelabs seelabs deleted the dev-next branch June 1, 2018 21:12
@JoeLoser
Copy link
Contributor

JoeLoser commented Jun 1, 2018

With Michael's changes, my PRs should just require an approval from a Ripple team member to run the Jenkins CI instead of closing and reopening my PRs, right? This would fall under the "untrusted" PRs from what I understand.

@mellery451
Copy link
Contributor

@JoeLoser for new PRs, yes...they will be able to build with manual approval (at least that's the intent). For existing PRs, possibly if/when there are new changes pushed (we'll have to see if that works)

@JoeLoser
Copy link
Contributor

JoeLoser commented Jun 1, 2018

@mellery451 sounds good. Thanks for your work! I'm sure it will make life easier for other team members as well with my changes. 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants